Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

epostle said:

To those who believe, evidence is not necessary. To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence will suffice. Validation through science is for unbelievers, not believers.

Click to expand...

No, let's get serious. The Catholic Church has been fooled in the past by fake miracles and then embarrassed when exposed. They have been fooled too by fake relics. That is the reason they rely on science today. They don't want more embarrassment.

I don't create an entire off topic theology over one verse. Learn the difference between what is explicit and what is implicit. Infallibility is explicit, apostolic succession is implicit, as I explained.

Click to expand...

A tidy way of making a claim that lacks evidence.

The evidence, the first few councils, clearly shows development of doctrine. You just refuse to accept it. Trinitarian theology came into fuller bloom at the Council of Chalcedon. The doctrine of the Trinity was not invented, revised or redefined. That's just plain denial on your part.

The Catholic Church would say there was one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the Apostles, and there’s been no change in that, in terms of essence or substance; so the Catholic Church preserves that, and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in depth of clarity, in the understanding of those truths, without essential change. In other words, the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. That’s the main distinction to keep in mind when one is talking about development.
Development of Doctrine (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)​

Click to expand...

But you don't name these alleged "contradictory teachings", you just assert them, a straw man, and then you accuse me of a logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

It is a glaring contradiction to say something can be added to the original without changing anything.

I'm waiting for you to give the expiry date for "things to come".

Click to expand...

There ought not be one, if the current teaching about Apostolic succession is correct, so I'm waiting for evidence of a Pope having this ability to know what to do so future events turn out right.

The reformers trashed apostolic succession because it was politically expedient.

Click to expand...

Off topic. Of course they did, but this isn't relevant to our discussion.

Yes, but again, you give no date when the Church ceased to teach without error. I submit you haven't a clue what infallibility means, nor do you understand apostolic succession.
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION - Scripture Catholic

Click to expand...

Sometime before the first Ecumenical Council since we see people with different views present. Some were bishops too.

Infallibility (teaching without error) has nothing to do with impeccability (living without sinning). Anti-Catholics constantly confuse the two, and so do you. Can you name ONE heretical bishop that taught ex cathedra? No, you can't, because it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what a bishop teaching ex cathedra means. I don't even know what it means for a Pope to do that. No one seems to know.

Read the encyclicals of the last 100 years. The Papal Encyclicals Online

Click to expand...

I lack the time to read them all. Do any show evidence
that the Holy Spirit revealed things to come to a Pope?

A picture of the Pope embracing the prophet isn't enough? Obviously you ignored the context that went with the picture. I can only spoon feed you so much without pasting walls of text that no one reads. Here it is the context, for the second time.
The Prophecy at Rome
Please stop asking questions on information you ignore.
Ephesians 4:11-16 lists 5 different functions. Popes, bishops, prophets, teachers etc. are DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS.

Click to expand...

Good try, but Jesus wasn't talking to future generations of prophets and teachings in that verse. The claim is that bishops are successors of the Apostles and therefore that verse applies to them. Now you seem to trying to wiggle out of that by saying part of the verse applies to other people and not bishops.

You asked why there is no prophecy in the Catholic Church, and I proved otherwise. Now you are raising the bar because you have, again, been proven wrong. Prophecy is not a power, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills. There is nothing in Scripture that demands that prophecy accompanies ordination.

Click to expand...

Some of the Apostles had it. If you want to "infer" that bishops inherited the "all truth" part, you should "infer" that they also would inherit the prophetic part. A shepherd needs to know where water is, where food is, where predators are. The earthly shepherd learns those things by experience; but a spiritual shepherd should have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters so he knows where potential dangers lie in the future so he can avoid them.

You are undermining yourself by saying no one can tell where the gift of prophecy may turn up. If that's the case, then consistency in logic would dictate that the ability to be guided into all truth could pop up anywhere too.

Giuliano said:

I'm still waiting for evidence that a Pope or bishop of this century or the last had the Holy Spirit revealing "things to come" to him.

Click to expand...

You might be interested in this:
The present crisis of the Holy See tested by prophecy : Manning, Henry Edward, 1808-1892 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Written over 150 years ago by Cardinal Manning.

The passion of the Church is not unexpected...

Peace!

Philip James said:

You might be interested in this:
The present crisis of the Holy See tested by prophecy : Manning, Henry Edward, 1808-1892 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Written over 150 years ago by Cardinal Manning.

The passion of the Church is not unexpected...

Peace!

Click to expand...

I didn't read the whole thing, but what I saw did not look like a new revelation. It looked like an attempt to analyze past events in the light of Biblical prophecy. Is there a particular page where Manning had something revealed to him by the Holy Spirit about future events, something that indeed came to past?

Giuliano said:

I didn't read the whole thing, but what I saw did not look like a new revelation. It looked like an attempt to analyze past events in the light of Biblical prophecy. Is there a particular page where Manning had something revealed to him by the Holy Spirit about future events, something that indeed came to past?

Click to expand...

As with most prophets, it is not a 'new' revelation but a clarification of what the Lord has already revealed, interpreted in the times in which we live..
His comments on the secularization of world goverments and indifference to Truth and morality have all come to pass.

But rather than I expounding on it, it would be better for you to read it yourself. I will happily discuss its contents with you when you have done so.

Peace!

Peace!

Philip James said:

As with most prophets, it is not a 'new' revelation but a clarification of what the Lord has already revealed, interpreted in the times in which we live..
His comments on the secularization of world goverments and indifference to Truth and morality have all come to pass.

But rather than I expounding on it, it would be better for you to read it yourself. I will happily discuss its contents with you when you have done so.

Peace!

Peace!

Click to expand...

I was looking for evidence that bishops can gain new and direct insight from the Spirit. The site was hard to read, and the style was ponderous. If I have time, I may read more of it; but I don't want to promise you and then fail to follow through. I did see one line that sparked my interest.

I'll tell you something now, something I can't verify. I was praying for the current Pope before he became Pope. I didn't know who he was, and my prayer to have that clarified went unanswered. I was thoroughly convinced that he would be from South America. When the conclave met and the press published a list of possible candidates, I checked it with great interest. My personal preference would have been Cardinal O'Malley who I see as one of the Catholic Church's shining lights; but I didn't consider him since he was from North America. I was not surprised then when the choice was revealed.

I also prayed about something else concerning Pope Francis, and then he made a public comment that gave me the answer I wanted. Something is playing out. . . the way it's supposed to. That is "my private prophecy" of course; but it's given me great satisfaction to see my prayers answered.

You see, I am someone who believes the Church can err -- even err greatly in practices and doctrines --- but it cannot err in a way that would mean it would fail. I don't expect any human or human institution to be perfect. I tend to scoff at any claims of such perfection in earthly terms; and if God had to wait for perfect people and perfection institutions to get things done, they'd never get done.

The great strength of the Catholic Church has been its faithfulness in the Eucharist. Yes, it can be compared to the Crucifixion; but it can also be compared to the Incarnation I think. Mary asked how can this be? She did not stumble at what sounded impossible, but said let it be so. I see those who approach the Eucharist the same way. "How can this be?" The logic of theologians is abandoned. I see the faith of the little child present, and God will not disappoint that kind of faith.

Giuliano said:

I was looking for evidence that bishops can gain new and direct insight from the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Giuliano said:

That is "my private prophecy" of course; but it's given me great satisfaction to see my prayers answered.

Click to expand...

Hm,
Seems to me you're looking for more private revelation that one would use in a particular circumstance.
Do you think this would be shared with any to whom it did not pertain?

Something like the vision Leo XIII had of God and Satan talking and Satan asking for 100 years to destroy the Church?

Or perhaps something more general like Bishop Sheen's

make men shrink in shame if their fellowmen say they are not broadminded and liberal; he will identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong; he will foster more divorces under the disguise that another partner is “vital”; he will increase love for love and decrease love for person; he will invoke religion to destroy religion

VIDEO: The Antichrist by Ven. Fulton Sheen

Peace!

Giuliano said:

I see the faith of the little child present, and God will not disappoint that kind of faith.

Click to expand...

Amen!

Philip James said:

Hm,
Seems to me you're looking for more private revelation that one would use in a particular circumstance.
Do you think this would be shared with any to whom it did not pertain?

Click to expand...

What I can say is that there have been eras in which the Catholic Church has drifted like a ship without a rudder.

Something like the vision Leo XIII had of God and Satan talking and Satan asking for 100 years to destroy the Church?

Click to expand...

I don't know that much about that. Was he able to plan better for the future?

Or perhaps something more general like Bishop Sheen's

make men shrink in shame if their fellowmen say they are not broadminded and liberal; he will identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong; he will foster more divorces under the disguise that another partner is “vital”; he will increase love for love and decrease love for person; he will invoke religion to destroy religion

VIDEO: The Antichrist by Ven. Fulton Sheen

Peace!

Click to expand...

Bishop Sheen is almost always interesting, and I find myself agreeing with much of what he said; but I don't know he had any private revelations that shaped his sermons. Perhaps he had a knack of focusing on the most essential points and emphasizing those.

Giuliano said:

I don't know that much about that. Was he able to plan better for the future?

Click to expand...

I guess that depends if you think him having the whole Church pray for the protection of St. Michael after every Mass bore fruit....

Peace!

Giuliano said:

What I can say is that there have been eras in which the Catholic Church has drifted like a ship without a rudder.

Click to expand...

Haha, perhaps..

And yet she always sails on, and ever will through tempest and calm... Yes, even through her coming passion and 'death' to a ressurection of Glory at our Lord's return.

Peace be with you!

Giuliano said:

What I can say is that there have been eras in which the Catholic Church has drifted like a ship without a rudder.

I don't know that much about that. Was he able to plan better for the future?

Bishop Sheen is almost always interesting, and I find myself agreeing with much of what he said; but I don't know he had any private revelations that shaped his sermons. Perhaps he had a knack of focusing on the most essential points and emphasizing those.

Click to expand...

It was Pope Leo XIII had that vision.
Pop Leo XIII is very interesting, a true Christian for sure.
I believe and he could see the whole subject of the World before him as well, as he was in no delusions about that at all.

Giuliano said:

No, let's get serious. The Catholic Church has been fooled in the past by fake miracles and then embarrassed when exposed. They have been fooled too by fake relics. That is the reason they rely on science today. They don't want more embarrassment.
A tidy way of making a claim that lacks evidence.

Click to expand...

But you don't cite "fake miracles", you just assert it. Why don't you find an instance of "fake miracles" and we can discuss it rationally, instead of making it up? And what is a "fake relic"? Another rabbit hole to derail the discussion?

So the essence "once delivered to the saints" was deemed inadequate and needed clarified.

Click to expand...

That is a phrase taken out of context, and I know of no instance where heretics made it mean something different. You ignore all my posts on the meaning of development of doctrine, and come up with this lunacy. Clarification and deeper understanding only means "added" to those who love their hostilities over and above the truth.

It is a glaring contradiction to say something can be added to the original without changing anything.

Click to expand...

So the doctrine of the Trinity is a glaring contradiction of 5 centuries of additions??? You are being ridiculous. You ignore all my posts on the meaning of development of doctrine, and come up with this lunacy.

There ought not be one, if the current teaching about Apostolic succession is correct, so I'm waiting for evidence of a Pope having this ability to know what to do so future events turn out right.

Click to expand...

Catholics don't put the Pope on such an insane pedestal. So you invent ridiculous expectations, a straw man fallacy. Infallibility has nothing to do with a pope having super powers invented by bigots, and apostolic succession is a different topic from infallibility. .

Off topic. Of course they did, but this isn't relevant to our discussion.
Sometime before the first Ecumenical Council since we see people with different views present. Some were bishops too.

Click to expand...

That's true. The majority of bishops before the first Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325) were Arians. This proves the Church was/is guided by the Holy Spirit, and not a show of hands apart from that.

I have no idea what a bishop teaching ex cathedra means. I don't even know what it means for a Pope to do that. No one seems to know.

Click to expand...

It means "from the Chair of Peter"; their is a list of requirements before that can happen. Information is free on anything Catholic. Use the search engine: www.catholic.com But first you have to WANT to know, otherwise, don't waste your time. Ignorance may be blissful but it is never illuminating.

I lack the time to read them all. Do any show evidence
that the Holy Spirit revealed things to come to a Pope?

Click to expand...

Just read the titles. The reason anti-Catholics avoid RECENT encyclicals is because they are not equipped, they would rather harp on 500 year old arguments that have been refuted a million times.

Good try, but Jesus wasn't talking to future generations of prophets and teachings in that verse. The claim is that bishops are successors of the Apostles and therefore that verse applies to them.

Click to expand...

I said that verse implicitly applies to them, (three times) I did not say it explicitly applies to them. You are doing that, not me.

Now you seem to trying to wiggle out of that by saying part of the verse applies to other people and not bishops.

Click to expand...

"Seem to"? How? Giuliano was not able to give an expiry date of "things to come" and neither can you.

Some of the Apostles had it. If you want to "infer" that bishops inherited the "all truth" part, you should "infer" that they also would inherit the prophetic part. A shepherd needs to know where water is, where food is, where predators are. The earthly shepherd learns those things by experience; but a spiritual shepherd should have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters so he knows where potential dangers lie in the future so he can avoid them.

Click to expand...

Bishops don't "inherit" all truth, they are guided into it as scripture says, and this happens over time. Why didn't the Apostles know the future of the immorality of test tube babies and human cloning? You are not being reasonable.

You are undermining yourself by saying no one can tell where the gift of prophecy may turn up.

Click to expand...

Please quote me instead of making things up. I was paraphrasing John 3:8.

BreadOfLife said:

Sooooo, you’re “okay” with all of the badly-behaving Protestants – but NOT okay with the badly-behaving Catholics – is that it??

And you don’t see ANY hypocrisy in your remarks??

Unreal . . .

Click to expand...

Who's talking about behavior?

I said:

The catholic church has done a terrible job of educating its people.

A TERRIBLE JOB OF EDUCATING.

Protestants have used the bible to EDUCATE their people.
The CC has NOT.

In the states reading the bible was not ENCOURAGED when I was a young person.
In Italy it was FORBIDDEN for persons to read the bible, even after WWII.
It has just begun to be encouraged. I don't mean yesterday,,perhaps within the past 20 years or so...

epostle said:

But you don't cite "fake miracles", you just assert it. Why don't you find an instance of "fake miracles" and we can discuss it rationally, instead of making it up? And what is a "fake relic"? Another rabbit hole to derail the discussion?
That is a phrase taken out of context, and I know of no instance where heretics made it mean something different. You ignore all my posts on the meaning of development of doctrine, and come up with this lunacy. Clarification and deeper understanding only means "added" to those who love their hostilities over and above the truth.
So the doctrine of the Trinity is a glaring contradiction of 5 centuries of additions??? You are being ridiculous. You ignore all my posts on the meaning of development of doctrine, and come up with this lunacy.
Catholics don't put the Pope on such an insane pedestal. So you invent ridiculous expectations, a straw man fallacy. Infallibility has nothing to do with a pope having super powers invented by bigots, and apostolic succession is a different topic from infallibility. .
That's true. The majority of bishops before the first Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325) were Arians. This proves the Church was/is guided by the Holy Spirit, and not a show of hands apart from that.
It means "from the Chair of Peter"; their is a list of requirements before that can happen. Information is free on anything Catholic. Use the search engine: www.catholic.com But first you have to WANT to know, otherwise, don't waste your time. Ignorance may be blissful but it is never illuminating.
Just read the titles. The reason anti-Catholics avoid RECENT encyclicals is because they are not equipped, they would rather harp on 500 year old arguments that have been refuted a million times.
I said that verse implicitly applies to them, (three times) I did not say it explicitly applies to them. You are doing that, not me. "Seem to"? How? Giuliano was not able to give an expiry date of "things to come" and neither can you.
Bishops don't "inherit" all truth, they are guided into it as scripture says, and this happens over time. Why didn't the Apostles know the future of the immorality of test tube babies and human cloning? You are not being reasonable.
Please quote me instead of making things up. I was paraphrasing John 3:8.

Click to expand...

How about bleeding saints?

I don't say that the CC approved of these "miracles".
But it sure did USE THEM instead of REJECTING THEM.

As I just stated to BoL...the church did nothing to educate its parishioners.
What a lost opportunity !

epostle said:

So you "got saved" outside the Church, and automatically assume there is no salvation IN the Church you left. This is a doctrine you have created and you are not being fair.

Click to expand...

I have a friend who still belongs to that church....... Which I back then ,,, brought her to the
church..........
I have know her since we were 5 years old.... now in our 80's.
And I have no way of getting her out of it !
I want to be her friend for ever....... But this will make her want to stop.
"being my friend" I am sure of that ! Since I was there and know what I would say !!!!!!!!
back then................

epostle said:

So you "got saved" outside the Church, and automatically assume there is no salvation IN the Church you left. This is a doctrine you have created and you are not being fair.

Click to expand...

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!
I felt like I was going to Hell....... all those years...
How fair is that ?????????

I never felt that GOD was going to believe me !!!!!!!!!
How fair is that to be ,,,,,,,,,, with that feeling,,, from the church. ????????

epostle said:

But you don't cite "fake miracles", you just assert it. Why don't you find an instance of "fake miracles" and we can discuss it rationally, instead of making it up? And what is a "fake relic"? Another rabbit hole to derail the discussion?

Click to expand...

I'll have to wait to repond to the rest of your post since this one will be long enough and I don't have time at the moment for more.

Fake relics? Surely, I can go down that rabbit hole. How many foreskins of Jesus could there be? There used to be 21. I can't vouch for the accuracy of every detail in this article; but it looks fairly accurate.

The Holy Foreskin

But the Holy Foreskin didn't appear only in art. The actual physical artifact — or what people claimed was the real thing — was a popular object of veneration.

The Holy Foreskin first made an appearance in medieval Europe around 800 ad, when King Charlemagne presented it as a gift to Pope Leo III. Charlemagne said it had been given to him by an angel.

However, rival foreskins soon began to pop up all over Europe. All told, twenty-one different churches claimed to have the Holy Foreskin, often at the same time. Various miraculous powers were attributed to these foreskins. In particular, they were supposed to be able to protect women during childbirth.

Given the glut of Holy Foreskins, churches made efforts to have their foreskin authenticated by Church leaders as the sole genuine article. In the early 12th century, the monks of San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome asked Pope Innocent III to rule on the authenticity of their foreskin, but he declined to do so. Later, the monks of Charroux claimed their foreskin to be the only real one, pointing out that it apparently yielded drops of blood. This convinced Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) who declared theirs to be the authentic thing.

Some medieval theologians argued that all the Holy Foreskins necessarily had to be frauds since the actual Holy Foreskin had, they asserted, ascended into Heaven with Christ. The 17th century theologian Leo Allatius speculated in his essay De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba that the holy foreskin had ascended into heaven at the same time as Jesus, and had become the rings of Saturn.

The Catholic Church eventually sought to extract itself from the Holy Foreskin controversy, deciding that it was rather unseemly for so much attention to be paid to Christ's private parts. It adopted the view that all the rival foreskins were frauds, and in 1900 made it a crime punishable by excommunication to write or speak about the Holy Foreskin.

One disappeared in 1983. My theory is someone in the Vatican got tired of one in Italy and paid someone to steal it.

Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia

Most of the Holy Prepuces were lost or destroyed during the Reformation and the French Revolution.[6]

In the Italian village of Calcata, a reliquary containing the supposed Holy Foreskin was paraded through the streets as recently as 1983 on the Feast of the Circumcision, which was formerly marked by the Roman Catholic Church around the world on January 1 each year. The practice ended, however, when thieves stole the jewel-encrusted case, contents and all. Following this theft, it is unclear whether any of the purported Holy Prepuces still exist. In a 1997 television documentary for Channel 4, British journalist Miles Kington travelled to Italy in search of the Holy Foreskin, but was unable to find any remaining example. On December 22, 2013 National Geographic Channel broadcast a documentary starring Farley called "The Quest for the Holy Foreskin".

Relics are interesting, of course, but one example is probably enough. Now let me go on to a "miracle" attributed to Mother Teresa in part 2.

The case looks easy to understand since Mother Teresa was so popular and so many people wanted for her on the path to being declared a saint. That put pressure on the Vatican which seems to have taken some shortcuts.

September 2007 Mother Teresa 'miracle' patient accuses nuns

An Indian woman whose "miracle" cure from cancer was instrumental in the beatification of Mother Teresa of Calcutta has accused the Sisters of Charity of abandoning her to a life of penury. The complaint of Monica Besra, 40, struck a sour note during commemorations of the 10th anniversary of Mother Teresa's death, as hundreds of faithful gathered in Calcutta for candle-lit processions and an inter-faith prayer vigil.

Mrs Besra became an overnight celebrity in September 1998 when she reported that she had been cured of a tumour after praying to Mother Teresa while pressing a medallion bearing the nun's image to her side.

The "miracle" was claimed as Mother Teresa's first posthumous act of healing – she died in 1997 – and was cited at a ceremony in October 2003 in which the Albanian-born nun was beatified by the Vatican.

However more than a decade later, Mrs Besra says she has been abandoned by the nuns who escorted her to Rome four years ago as living proof of their Mother Superior's healing powers.

"My hut was frequented by nuns of the Missionaries of Charity before the beatification of Mother Teresa," said Mrs Besra, squatting on the floor of her thatched and mud house in the village of Dangram, 460 miles northeast of Calcutta.

"They made of lot of promises to me and assured me of financial help for my livelihood and my children's education.

"After that, they forgot me. I am living in penury. My husband is sick. My children have stopped going to school as I have no money. I have to work in the fields to feed my husband and five children."

I don't know what her motives were originally; but when the money stopped, she raised a fuss. It gets more interesting.

However several groups, including her doctors, have disputed that Mrs Besra was cured by a miracle, claiming instead that her tumour disappeared as a result of medical treatment at the local hospital.

Mrs Besra has said that she visited hospital for treatment and taken prescribed medicines.

In an interview with Time magazine in 2002, Mrs Besra's husband Seiku was among those to challenge the Vatican's claim. "It is much ado about nothing. My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle," he said.

Ranjan Mustafi, a doctor at the local the state-run Balurghat Hospital who treated Mrs Besra, said that the tumour had been caught at an early stage and had "responded to our treatment steadily."

Mrs Besra says that her own faith in Mother Teresa remained unshaken despite the voices of doubters and her own straightened financial circumstances.

"I find peace when I close my eyes and think of her. I often see her in my dreams," she said.

The Vatican said she was suffering from amnesia at one point.

March 2015 Rosa Rubicondior: Mother Teresa's Fake Miracle

Miracle of miracles! This was dutifully supplied by the nuns of the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta (Kolkata), India. According to their 34,000 page submission, on the first anniversary of her death, a poor peasant woman named Monica Besra had come to them for assistance suffering from acute abdominal pains which she said was caused by a cancerous tumour. They then placed a photograph of Mother Teresa and a locket over the pain, which promptly went away, along with the tumour. Quite why they chose this novel and untested method of treating a painful abdominal tumour was never explained.

The facts however were slightly different. Monica Besra had been treated at the government-run hospital in Balurghat where an ultrasound investigation had revealed a tuberculous mass (not a cancer) on one of her ovaries for which she was treated, according to the hospital's records, by Dr.Tarun Kumar Biwas and Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, a gynaecologist. After leaving hospital her care was continued as an outpatient at the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital until she was discharged, fully cured in March 1999, a final ultrasound scan showing no trace of the tumour. The treatment and cure were perfectly straightforward and Monica's condition progressed exactly as expected.

The hospital's superintendent handed Monica Besra's entire medical records, including the ultrasound scans, details of medication and doctors notes detailing a perfectly normal treatment and cure, to Sister Betta (sic) of the Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata, who appears to have promptly lost them. After first claiming that they had misplaced these records, the Missionaries of Charity then changed their story and now claim they were never given them, simply denying in best theological tradition, the mass of evidence to the contrary. Bearing false witness would appear not to be regarded as a sin by these devout Catholic nuns.

Then another miracle happened. Although Monica Besra is illiterate and speaks only her local dialect with a smattering of Bengali and English, never the less she was able to prepare a statement in perfect English and which revealed details of Catholic doctrine to which she could never have been privy, to be handed by one of the sisters to Brian Kolodiejchuk who was investigating the claims on behalf of the Vatican.

Along with this miracle, several statements by 'doctors' from the hospitals which treated Monica certifying that her recovery was miraculous and could not be explained by science, also appeared amongst the 34,000 pages. The only slight problem was that the hospitals have no record of ever having had doctors with those names working for them and attempts to trace them have all been unsuccessful. The entire 34,000 pages of evidence supplied to the Vatican by the Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata contain not a single word from any of the medical staff actually involved in Monica Besra's treatment, her entire medical records now having disappeared, presumed destroyed, the last person known to have handled them being Sister Betta (sic) who refuses to comment when asked about them. Meanwhile, protestations by Dr. Ranjan Mustafi that her condition was not cancerous, was curable and was cured by him and the staff at Balurghat Hospital using perfectly standard medicines and procedures went unheeded.

My wife did feel less pain one night when she used the locket, but her pain had been coming and going. Then she went to the doctors, and they cured her. My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle.


Monica's husband, Seiku, has never made any secret of the fact that the reported miracle cure was never anything of the sort. Irritated by the constant stream of sick people coming to his door expecting a miracle cure themselves, he freely tells people it was the doctors at the hospital who cured his wife, not a miracle.

In 2008, Monica herself began to claim that her miracle cure was nothing of the sort when the stream of poor people seeking a miracle cure reduced to a slow trickle. At this point the third miracle appears to have happened. The Vatican decided that Monica was suffering from amnesia and the poor family now needed a great deal of money, which they channeled to them via the Missionaries of Charity who explained that this was a perfectly normal charitable donation to a poor family in need, and places were suddenly found for Monica's four sons at an expensive Catholic-run private school. Monica's faith in the miraculous nature of her cure and the saintliness of Mother Teresa seems to have been restored almost as quickly as her 'cancer' was cured and she now even remembers the miraculous light that shone out of the photograph and into her body, curing her instantly. No doubt a case of poverty-induced amnesia being miraculously reversed with holy money.

Reggie Belafonte said:

It was Pope Leo XIII had that vision.
Pop Leo XIII is very interesting, a true Christian for sure.
I believe and he could see the whole subject of the World before him as well, as he was in no delusions about that at all.

Click to expand...

Rev. Anthony Cekada reached the conclusion there was no such vision.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Russia-Leonine.pdf

A. An Alleged Vision A pamphlet dealing with a diabolical possession, written in the early 1930s and still popular in traditional Catholic circles, relates the following about the St. Michael prayer: A rather peculiar circumstance induced Pope Leo XIII to compose this powerful prayer. After celebrating Mass one day he was in conference with the Cardinals. Suddenly he sank to the floor. A doctor was summoned and several came at once. There was no sign of any pulse-beating[;] the very life seemed to have ebbed away from the already weakened and aged body. Suddenly he recovered and said: “What a horrible picture I was permitted to see!” He saw what was going to happen in the future, the misleading powers and the ravings of the devils against the Church in all countries. But St. Michael had appeared in the nick of time and cast Satan and his cohorts back into the abyss of hell. Such was the occasion that caused Pope Leo XIII to have this prayer recited over the entire world at the end of Mass.

The foregoing passage appears as a digression in an account of an exorcism. The author gives no date for the alleged vision. An article written in 1933 repeats the same account, virtually word for word, adding: “And so, shortly after 1880, Leo decreed the general prayer to St. Michael.”
15 Note the date given for the supposed vision: 1880 — four years before Leo XIII prescribed the Prayers after Low Mass without the St. Michael prayer, and six years before the prayer itself was actually prescribed. A more recent variant of the story adds another detail: It quotes a dialogue between Our Lord and Satan that Pope Leo supposedly heard during the vision. One writer says the dialogue occurred at the foot of the altar, where Leo stopped after Mass. He gives no date.16 Another writer tells the same story, but he gives a date: 13 October 1884.
17 Still another writer tells essentially the same variant of the story as these two writers, but he has the event taking place when “the aged Pontiff was in a conference with the Cardinals.”
18 And the most recently circulated version of the story gives yet another date for the supposed vision: 25 September 1888.
19 Here again, remember that the St. Michael prayer in fact appeared two years earlier (in 1886) than this account would have it.
20 Now while all six accounts cited connect the St. Michael prayer with a supposed vision, they differ as to when, where, and how the alleged vision took place. None of them, moreover, gives a source, even the two accounts from the 1930s. All six authors merely assert that the incident took place.

There are no credible sources and the timing is off.

Michael prayer and a supposed vision of Leo XIII may be summarized as follows:
• Writings which promote the story give no references to sources.
• The various accounts contradict each other as to where the vision supposedly took place — after Mass at the foot of the altar, or in a conference with cardinals.
• The various accounts are inconsistent about the date of the vision.
• The dates the accounts give for the alleged vision (1880, 1884 and 1888) do not correspond with the date when the St. Michael prayer was actually instituted (1886).
• There appears to be no corroboration for the story in a contemporary account which one would expect to have mentioned the event, had it indeed taken place. These considerations all tend to support the conclusion Father Bers arrived at in the 1930s: “that the ‘vision’ had been invented in later times for some reason,” and that the story was simply feeding upon itself.

Giuliano said:

I'll have to wait to repond to the rest of your post since this one will be long enough and I don't have time at the moment for more.

Fake relics? Surely, I can go down that rabbit hole. How many foreskins of Jesus could there be? There used to be 21. I can't vouch for the accuracy of every detail in this article; but it looks fairly accurate.

The Holy Foreskin

But the Holy Foreskin didn't appear only in art. The actual physical artifact — or what people claimed was the real thing — was a popular object of veneration.

The Holy Foreskin first made an appearance in medieval Europe around 800 ad, when King Charlemagne presented it as a gift to Pope Leo III. Charlemagne said it had been given to him by an angel.

However, rival foreskins soon began to pop up all over Europe. All told, twenty-one different churches claimed to have the Holy Foreskin, often at the same time. Various miraculous powers were attributed to these foreskins. In particular, they were supposed to be able to protect women during childbirth.

Given the glut of Holy Foreskins, churches made efforts to have their foreskin authenticated by Church leaders as the sole genuine article. In the early 12th century, the monks of San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome asked Pope Innocent III to rule on the authenticity of their foreskin, but he declined to do so. Later, the monks of Charroux claimed their foreskin to be the only real one, pointing out that it apparently yielded drops of blood. This convinced Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) who declared theirs to be the authentic thing.

Some medieval theologians argued that all the Holy Foreskins necessarily had to be frauds since the actual Holy Foreskin had, they asserted, ascended into Heaven with Christ. The 17th century theologian Leo Allatius speculated in his essay De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba that the holy foreskin had ascended into heaven at the same time as Jesus, and had become the rings of Saturn.

The Catholic Church eventually sought to extract itself from the Holy Foreskin controversy, deciding that it was rather unseemly for so much attention to be paid to Christ's private parts. It adopted the view that all the rival foreskins were frauds, and in 1900 made it a crime punishable by excommunication to write or speak about the Holy Foreskin.

One disappeared in 1983. My theory is someone in the Vatican got tired of one in Italy and paid someone to steal it.

Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia

Most of the Holy Prepuces were lost or destroyed during the Reformation and the French Revolution.[6]

In the Italian village of Calcata, a reliquary containing the supposed Holy Foreskin was paraded through the streets as recently as 1983 on the Feast of the Circumcision, which was formerly marked by the Roman Catholic Church around the world on January 1 each year. The practice ended, however, when thieves stole the jewel-encrusted case, contents and all. Following this theft, it is unclear whether any of the purported Holy Prepuces still exist. In a 1997 television documentary for Channel 4, British journalist Miles Kington travelled to Italy in search of the Holy Foreskin, but was unable to find any remaining example. On December 22, 2013 National Geographic Channel broadcast a documentary starring Farley called "The Quest for the Holy Foreskin".

Relics are interesting, of course, but one example is probably enough. Now let me go on to a "miracle" attributed to Mother Teresa in part 2.

Click to expand...

I didn't say there were no fake relics; I said find some and we can discuss it rationally. A lot of crazy things went on in the middle ages, but that does not discredit the thousands of miracles, mostly undocumented, from authentic relics. I like the last line: It adopted the view that all the rival foreskins were frauds, and in 1900 made it a crime punishable by excommunication to write or speak about the Holy Foreskin.
I don't believe such a relic ever existed in the first place, just crazy midaeval legends. I agree the whole thing is a fraud. But what about other relics? Does the practice have any scriptural warrant?

Exodus 29:37
Exodus 30:28-29
Leviticus 6:27
The altar is a physical object, a vehicle of God's grace, that by touching it, makes you holy, as scripture clearly states.
2 Kings 2:11-14
Elijah’s mantle is an example of a “second-class” relic: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person.
2 Kings 13:20-21
The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or “grace” in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead. His bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself.
Mark 5:25-30
Luke 8:43-48
Jesus did say that the woman’s faith made her well, yet the instrumentality of a physical object in contact with Jesus was also a factor: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing “power” to go “forth from him.” God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:
John 9:6-7
Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man’s eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). The Bible thus teaches that physical things related to a holy person in some fashion can be channels to bring about miracles. This is exactly how Catholics view relics. There are several other examples of the same thing, with touch or matter of some sort being utilized to heal.
Acts 5:15-16
St. Peter’s shadow is another example of a “second-class” relic. Jesus’ garments and saliva are also in this category.
Acts 19:11-12
This is a third-class relic: a thing that has merely touched a holy person or a first-class relic (St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons).
Relics: A Collection of Explicit Biblical Proofs & Evidences
Relics are not classed as doctrinal, they are classed as devotional, so real or fake, they have nothing to do with infallibility.